Lurking the forum I’ve found many posts labeling this game as “funny but not a simulation”. I do agree with this statement, although I consider “funny” too little, because this game is really engaging and exciting, but I’m pretty curious about the areas that you guys think could (should?) be improved with regard to realism. My 2 cents. 1. Ground movement and combat, though very hard to simulate IMHO with 1-day turns and hex 46 miles-wide 2. Command and control system, basically non-existent in the game 3. Suffering of the civilians. I mean, Japanese could “win” that war only forcing the American leadership to accept the conquest of the “greater sphere of the co-prosperity and this could be accomplished only crushing the will to fight of the Allied population (i.e. American population). On the other hand, Western Powers could win the war just starving the Japanese population to a death that they did. Either facets are not modeled into the game but victory is assigned by the point system that lead to a unrealistic actions as improving worthless bases for the sake of points.

ORIGINAL: adsoul64 2. Command and control system, basically non-existent in the game

I consider WiTP:AE to be 'fun' (enjoyable) rather than 'funny' (ha ha, laughs). Just a grammatical correction.

I don't understand what you mean here. How is this not represented in the game? Every minute facet of command and control-from the strategic to the tactical minutae-is represented in this game.

You're right that the game does not simulate the political / societal aspects of the Second World War PTO. It doesn't attempt to do so, and that's fine with me. I'd not be interested in a game that tried that.

I consider WiTP:AE to be 'fun' (enjoyable) rather than 'funny' (ha ha, laughs). Just a grammatical correction.

Yes, exactly what I meant

quote:

I don't understand what you mean here. How is this not represented in the game? Every minute facet of command and control-from the strategic to the tactical minutae-is represented in this game.

If Command and Control is “The exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission” you cannot find many facets of the game where this is taken in account. Yes, closeness to the proper HQs will finally give you some distinct advantage but I feel the game fail to simulate several important things, for example: Bonus for full unit in combat (i.e there’s no difference into the game if you have in combat 2 RGTs with the same parent unit or all the RGTs and unit of that parent unit). Penalties for operations (combat, movement, etc.) involving unit from different service or, (allies only) from different nationalities The attachment to a HQs system seems to me really unrealistic. I mean, if you move unit A, let’s say from the Philippines to the Solomons, she will keep her original HQs that is hardly historical. Yes, I can spend PPs to change HQs but if I have run out of them I’m not prevented to make the move and I will have in the same area unit far away from their parent HQs. The unit won’t enjoy the advantage of the closeness to her parent HQs but she will be able to move and combat. Hoping to have been clear

quote:

You're right that the game does not simulate the political / societal aspects of the Second World War PTO. It doesn't attempt to do so, and that's fine with me. I'd not be interested in a game that tried that.

IMHO, failing to reproduce that, introduces an element that dramatically changes player strategic targets. For one, there’s no reason to try something like Doolittle raid, admittedly of no material impact but nevertheless a historical operation.

ORIGINAL: adsoul64 Bonus for full unit in combat (i.e there’s no difference into the game if you have in combat 2 RGTs with the same parent unit or all the RGTs and unit of that parent unit).

I think you'll find that reconstituted ID (Infantry Divisions) are more resilient to punishment than are their component regiments or other smaller 'breakdown' units. I don't know if there's an AV (Assault value) benefit towards fighting with full units, but there is in the resilience of the parent / whole versus the subunits.

quote:

Penalties for operations (combat, movement, etc.) involving unit from different service or, (allies only) from different nationalities The attachment to a HQs system seems to me really unrealistic. I mean, if you move unit A, let’s say from the Philippines to the Solomons, she will keep her original HQs that is hardly historical.

You're right-HQ affiliation is meaningless, other than those units attached to a restricted HQ. It doesn't bother me, as it offers me more options strategically.

quote:

IMHO, failing to reproduce that, introduces an element that dramatically changes player strategic targets. For one, there’s no reason to try something like Doolittle raid, admittedly of no material impact but nevertheless a historical operation.

There are some overarching political themes associated with the game that somewhat reflect the impact of societal demands for a 'clean' and rapid end to hostilities. As Allies, if the war drags into 1946-victory levels are reduced. This reflects Allied home front demand for an end to the conflict. If more than two atomic bombs are used, Allied victory levels are reduced accordingly. This reflects the need for a 'clean' end to hostilities. Also, need to rebase one of those West coast CONUS divisions to SoPAC? Well, you'll have to use some political capital (i.e., PPs) to convince the American public / home defense forces to part with them. Rough tools? Perhaps. But there is some impact of morale and home front issues in the game.

Adsoul, this is a GAME. NOT a simulation. Not a historic recreation. I belive this is the absolute best that designers could come up with , facing realities, like time , money, people , the game engine and other resources. If you feel the game to be unworthy of you, don't play it. If you feel you can find a better one, buy it. If you don't like it, and can't find another , then build it. Please don't come here and whine about how awful the game is to those of us who've spent hundreds or thousands of hours playing it. For us , Monopoly is a game. War in the Pacific is a lifestyle, approaching a relgion. For a "disbeliver" to come forth and try to convince "The converted" that the game is "borked","Broken" or not worth playing is for an atheist to try and convert the Pope. You are free to waste your time, but I'm thinking that your "not going to get much traction". Why not go to designers forums with suggestions? Is stead of inflamatory Thread names like yours, why not something like "How can we make this great game even better?".

We will pray to the "One True Thread" and hope for your eventual conversion.

_____________________________

"Geezerhood is a state of mind, attained by being largely out of yours". AW1Steve

"Quit whining and play the game. Or go home". My 7th grade baseball coach. It applies well to WITP AE players.

1. Ground movement and combat, though very hard to simulate IMHO with 1-day turns and hex 46 miles-wide. The ground game IS the weakest link in the game. But this is mostly because it's the least important or dramatic part of the war. It works OK for the island invasions, but not so much for the Asian mainland. But the game is called THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC, not the WAR IN ASIA, so this is perhaps forgivable in the interest of providing more detail to the air and naval portions of the war.

2. Command and control system, basically non-existent in the game. A compromise" made necessary by the duel nature of "Political Points". If the game provided enough PP's to institute historic "chains of command", they could also be used to release totally ahistoric quantities of units for combat.

3. Suffering of the civilians. I mean, Japanese could “win” that war only forcing the American leadership to accept the conquest of the “greater sphere of the co-prosperity and this could be accomplished only crushing the will to fight of the Allied population (i.e. American population). In game terms, this would be represented by the Japanese player dragging the war out past it's historic ending date. On the other hand, Western Powers could win the war just starving the Japanese population to a death that they did. Either facets are not modeled into the game but victory is assigned by the point system that lead to a unrealistic actions as improving worthless bases for the sake of points. Won't argue with you on VP's, because I think they are silly as well. But some players insist on them, so there they are.

Adsoul, this is a GAME. NOT a simulation. Not a historic recreation. I belive this is the absolute best that designers could come up with , facing realities, like time , money, people , the game engine and other resources. If you feel the game to be unworthy of you, don't play it. If you feel you can find a better one, buy it. If you don't like it, and can't find another , then build it. Please don't come here and whine about how awful the game is to those of us who've spent hundreds or thousands of hours playing it. For us , Monopoly is a game. War in the Pacific is a lifestyle, approaching a relgion. For a "disbeliver" to come forth and try to convince "The converted" that the game is "borked","Broken" or not worth playing is for an atheist to try and convert the Pope. You are free to waste your time, but I'm thinking that your "not going to get much traction". Why not go to designers forums with suggestions? Is stead of inflamatory Thread names like yours, why not something like "How can we make this great game even better?".

We will pray to the "One True Thread" and hope for your eventual conversion.

Ditto.

I get very tired of people banging on about the game not being historically accurate. It does have it's flaws, many of which have been ironed out some haven't and never will, command and control being the main one. I've been playing the game from within a week of WitP coming out and if the game was that bad, as some would lead use to beleive, I would have stopped a long time ago. If you want historical accuracy go and get a documentary all-be-it not one from the discovery channel or follow the suggestions main by as AW1Steve.

I bet is my bad English to blame if I have been unable to explain what I meant. I hoped my first sentence was enough to make clear that I like extremely this game, at least for a fair careful reader. I'm not spending countless hours with a game if I don't think that's a great game. You write "this is a GAME. NOT a simulation". OK, this is exactly what I said. And it's not an original idea from myself. Indeed, when I read it my first thought was "what? This is a great game, what the problem with it"? Then I considered more and more the idea and I think exactly what you said: it's not a historic recreation. Hence my sentence "but I’m pretty curious about the areas that you guys think could (should?) be improved with regard to realism". I'm wondering what the other guys think, I'm not trying to convince anybody, least of all "to get much traction". Anyway, forgive me but I cannot waste more time with this thread, I got to check a couple of things on the Tracker before my opponent mail me the turn

I bet is my bad English to blame if I have been unable to explain what I meant. I hoped my first sentence was enough to make clear that I like extremely this game, at least for a fair careful reader. I'm not spending countless hours with a game if I don't think that's a great game. You write "this is a GAME. NOT a simulation". OK, this is exactly what I said. And it's not an original idea from myself. Indeed, when I read it my first thought was "what? This is a great game, what the problem with it"? Then I considered more and more the idea and I think exactly what you said: it's not a historic recreation. Hence my sentence "but I’m pretty curious about the areas that you guys think could (should?) be improved with regard to realism". I'm wondering what the other guys think, I'm not trying to convince anybody, least of all "to get much traction". Anyway, forgive me but I cannot waste more time with this thread, I got to check a couple of things on the Tracker before my opponent mail me the turn

No not the best designers, there are some out there that didnt succeed in computer science. Another word it would cost alot of timing and money to have the talents and research. Hang in there guys, it will get better someday, maybe not this game or next game gary publish.

The game itself is complex, but lack of simulations of the real things, that only way i can put it in writings.

I'm not so sure a political aspect of the game is wanted. I played the HOI series of games for years, and dabbled in Making History. I find the wildly ahistoric experience unrewarding and largely for 'inmature gamers' who prefer to sidestep the struggles of the era by builing a 28,000 tanks and blitzing the jungles of burma with said column; or just sail 50 carriers and 1 destroyer into Tokyo harbor and win the war on Dec 8th. I do not think giving full power to the player to break a game engine through ahistoric play is a good foundation for a strategy game.

Here we go again... I really don't know why these guys still play this game, if they think it is so flawed. I wonder sometimes if they are just not very good at playing it, and start throwing their toys around by attacking this beautiful game of ours.

adsoul64; my advice to you would be to either go and play another game that meets the standards you are looking for. Or stop your whining about this game, and learn how to actually play it for what it is.

_____________________________

When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time You understand now, Why you came this way

A couple of people need to chill out a bit. I have been playing Adsoul for a few months now and he is a very engaging and gallant opponent. He obviously loves the game and is only hampered by his inperfect use of the english language. Not everyone is a native speaker....

He just raises a few issues with the game and states he is curious about what other people think could be improved...

_____________________________

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.” ¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

ORIGINAL: adsoul64 Lurking the forum I’ve found many posts labeling this game as “funny but not a simulation”. I do agree with this statement, although I consider “funny” too little, because this game is really engaging and exciting, but I’m pretty curious about the areas that you guys think could (should?) be improved with regard to realism.

Hi Adsoul,

I wouldn't speak of "realism". This is a game, and it is not real: - you don't get shot at, or cause anyone to be - you assume the position of hundreds of commanding officers and their staffs, and decide pretty much everything, from individual pilot transfer, to ship loading and unit movement - you have, at all time, a perfect knowledge of your troops, and their capabilities, everywhere, and can interact with them instantly - against the AI, you can restart or replay a turn, - you benefit from all the technical knowledge (about the game and history) shared on the forum - you have hindsight, ie you know which were the strengths and weaknesses of each side, and you know the game designers knew them, and factored them into the system

I think you can call it a simulation, though, and that it is a pretty good one. You get results which make sense, according to what we know, or believe, about the historical events, and warfare. Like all simulations, it is based upon facts, but also opinions the development team had about the war, and why/how things happened. One might agree, or disagree, with some of those opinions, but again, nothing feels "totally wrong".

This said, I believe we all have things we like more, and things we like less.

Personally, I like the ground model, because it feels right to me, and it is not overly detailed (I don't care much about the hardware, and if I wanted a tactical/grand tactical game, I'd play one). I enjoy the air war less, because I find it too detailed for my taste, so it often feels like an exercise in clicking and testing how the system works, but I understand some people love it for that same reason.

More generallly, I really enjoy the large scope of the game, having to think global and long term, and like the micromanagement less. I'd love a future AE to allow me to automate some of those tasks, and not cause TF2356 wait in port because I forgot to tell her to load, or refuel, or disband, or pilot John Doe wait for me to tell him where he should go next. This amount of control is also the part of the game I feel as the "less real". I have the impression the game gives me much more control over my units, and much shorter reaction delays, than any actual commander, or staff, had.

But those things I like less have not stopped me from playing. So I suspect the game "works" for me.

I'm sure to draw some fire for this but I think a major weakness of the game is the failure of the game to reflect Japanese Carrier Doctrine as anything different than 1944 American Carrier Doctrine but available to only one player for the first year of the war.

1) IJN carriers are portrayed as being able to form-up a strike comprised of virtually all of their strike aircraft and an adequate escort in a single attack package while at the same time maintaining a pretty decent CAP. In point of fact, each single carrier could provide a strike package of 1/2 of its strike aircraft (the last day of The Battle of the Coral Sea, where both the range was very short and the carrier air groups were already reduced significantly was the only exception to this rule). This fact is why the Japanese conceived and developed the concept of the Carrier Division and the 1st Air Fleet. Multiple carrier operations were the only way to apply a potentially decisive quantity of air power to an operation. But there was a finite upper limit to this ability and that was the application of 1/2 the overall aircraft number. The game does demonstrate that two raids of 25 get chewed up a lot more than one raid of 50. Even at Pearl Harbor the losses incurred by the 2nd wave attackers were 3 times those of the first wave when surprise was complete and CAP of any sort non-existent. KB's losses at Santa Cruz were so severe because each of the two waves of bombers from Shokaku and Zuikaku had to fight their own way through the CAP and the flak (to say nothing of Junyo's planes but Junyo was operating as a separate force). In real life the formation of all bombers available into a single wave required the first planes launched to waste 30-40 minutes of gas waiting while the remainder warmed their engines and launched. It was forced upon the Japanese by the very construction of their carriers (enclosed hangar deck). Those decisions about construction were made long before the scope of AE Player's control (early 20's and 30's).

2)Meanwhile the KB maintains a decent CAP at the same time (as the massive bomber launch) which not only varies little in strength but routinely intercepts incoming raids. Admittedly if the Allied Player has 10 different raids the last one or two will penetrate the CAP BUT, the continuing cycling of the CAP is the very reason that the KB was unable to strike the American carriers until 3 of their ships were flaming wrecks at Midway. In real life each IJN carrier launched and landed its own CAP independently from the other carriers in the force and from the force commander. This foible was aggravated by the relative ineffectiveness of the the A6M's 7.7mm guns against armored American aircraft requiring the A6Ms to land and rearm their 20mm guns frequently.

3) The Japanese "invented" the close-in ring (1000 yard) of flak armed screening vessels in 1944. That would be no less than 3 years AFTER their American opponents invented it. For all intents and purposes each Japanese carrier defended itself with its own flak guns and that was all. The flak guns of the battleships and cruisers and the overwhelming majority of the destroyers in the screen were out of range to provide the carriers with any cover. Yes they could fire at approaching planes but without the necessity to focus on bombing the target the American bomber pilots were also free to take measures to evade the flak from the distant screen. Japanese heavy AA fire control directors weren't all that good if the targets changed direction or altitude much. American AA directors may not have been that good either but the difference was that the American guns were in close where they could help and the IJN pilots were concentrating their attention on hitting their targets rather than trying to evade the flak.

4) The Japanese NEVER had Fighter Direction Centers at all. Certainly the American FDC's weren't that good in 1941-42 and the Japanese were able to exploit their failings but every time the KB fought the US CVs; win lose or draw their losses in aircrew were severe. By 1944, the USN FDCs could manage fleet defense quite effectively (Marianas Turkey Shoot and other demonstations). It should be noted also that the USN FDCs of 1941-42 were never tested by a series of one unescorted squadron attacks in the way that the KB was treated to again and again. If they had, in all likelihood Torpedo Eight et al would have had a lot of IJN company.

The lack of a developed multiple carrier doctrine hurt the USN in the early going and the game has special coordination rules which reflect that lack. When I read IJN Player AARs in which the IJN Player complains that one of his carriers is damaged but somehow one of the 4 USN CVs got away I get the impression that IJN Players of this game are pretty confident that their carriers should defeat the USN until "the part of the game where the US builds more carriers than Japan has bombs". History certainly provides no basis for this confidence.

The KB was great at offense, better than the US certainly at first, but not as good as the game allows. It wasn't that good at defense and remained quite a bit behind the US in that aspect of naval combat throughout the war.

Come on guys, adsoul doesn't seem to be saying the game is rubbish or similar. If I may make an assumption, he's from Italy and probably doesn't have the same grasp of the English language as we do. I can see the point he is making and I'll admit I agree to a certain extent.

You want a 'realistic' game then what you need are players to fulfil the roles of (these are a minimum and there are plenty more that could be there):

A British & Indian military commander An Australian military commander A NZ military commander US Army commanders for the CENTPAC, SOPAC, SWPAC, CBI and Alaskan region (ideally seperate people). US Navy commanders for the above. A Chinese commander. A Communist Chinese commander. A British war office/cabinet player. A US government player. An Australian government player. A NZ government player. A Dutch player

IJN commander for the seperate regions IJA commander for the seperate regions Japanese government player.

The government (war office) players are there to tell the military commanders what to do in broad terms and do not directly control the action. Ideally they should each have separate ideas on how to carry out the war. Then the military commanders each carry out the orders as they see fit with the forces the governments have allocated them. For added realism each commander should be determined that his/her area is the most important one. This will create a realistic approximation of the war, to further increase the realism each player only gets a maximum of one hour to view the turn and issue their orders, thus recreating the pressure that would be felt at a real HQ. Obviously the game would last about half a turn before everything imploded

The British government will be concerned about the Empire's position post war, the US will desire to prop up China whilst also having no desire to help regain the colonial possessions of the UK. The Australian and NZ governments will be concerned about Japanese invasion and the Chinese players will each be trying to kick out the Japanese whilst maintaining their own forces at a stronger level than their oppo ready for a post war show down.

Come on guys, adsoul doesn't seem to be saying the game is rubbish or similar. If I may make an assumption, he's from Italy and probably doesn't have the same grasp of the English language as we do. I can see the point he is making and I'll admit I agree to a certain extent.

You want a 'realistic' game then what you need are players to fulfil the roles of (these are a minimum and there are plenty more that could be there):

A British & Indian military commander An Australian military commander A NZ military commander US Army commanders for the CENTPAC, SOPAC, SWPAC, CBI and Alaskan region (ideally seperate people). US Navy commanders for the above. A Chinese commander. A Communist Chinese commander. A British war office/cabinet player. A US government player. An Australian government player. A NZ government player. A Dutch player

IJN commander for the seperate regions IJA commander for the seperate regions Japanese government player.

The government (war office) players are there to tell the military commanders what to do in broad terms and do not directly control the action. Ideally they should each have separate ideas on how to carry out the war. Then the military commanders each carry out the orders as they see fit with the forces the governments have allocated them. For added realism each commander should be determined that his/her area is the most important one. This will create a realistic approximation of the war, to further increase the realism each player only gets a maximum of one hour to view the turn and issue their orders, thus recreating the pressure that would be felt at a real HQ. Obviously the game would last about half a turn before everything imploded

The British government will be concerned about the Empire's position post war, the US will desire to prop up China whilst also having no desire to help regain the colonial possessions of the UK. The Australian and NZ governments will be concerned about Japanese invasion and the Chinese players will each be trying to kick out the Japanese whilst maintaining their own forces at a stronger level than their oppo ready for a post war show down.

So you are telling me that he objects to the "Grand Poo-bah" concept where one guy controls everything? The thing I've been saying is the only "gamey thing" about the game? Next he'll be complaining about "factory-manager-in-the Pacific"!

As John says "Woof"!.... My big objection is that a previous poster referred to this being "only a game"!!!!! SACRILEGE!!!!!!! BURN HIM!!!!!!!!!

If he has trouble with the gamey side of "grand poo-bahism", he can always get into a 2x2 ,3x3, or even 9x8 and NOT talk to his fellow team mates. In fact , they can do a NO-COMMUNICATIONS house rule! It would even be better if some of the team mates hated each other.

Seriously , I doubt if the finest minds in the universe (including the ones here) can resolve the problem. Why get wrapped around the axel on it? It's a game. With flaws , as every game has. Why not just accept it, enjoy it and move on? Or find another way to occupy your spare time.

And come on folks, lets keep it light. Smile. Have some fun. Then set the doubters and heretics on fire! (Just kidding!).

_____________________________

"Geezerhood is a state of mind, attained by being largely out of yours". AW1Steve

"Quit whining and play the game. Or go home". My 7th grade baseball coach. It applies well to WITP AE players.

Posts: 5317
Joined: 1/26/2005 From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Come on guys, adsoul doesn't seem to be saying the game is rubbish or similar. If I may make an assumption, he's from Italy and probably doesn't have the same grasp of the English language as we do. I can see the point he is making and I'll admit I agree to a certain extent.

You want a 'realistic' game then what you need are players to fulfil the roles of (these are a minimum and there are plenty more that could be there):

A British & Indian military commander An Australian military commander A NZ military commander US Army commanders for the CENTPAC, SOPAC, SWPAC, CBI and Alaskan region (ideally seperate people). US Navy commanders for the above. A Chinese commander. A Communist Chinese commander. A British war office/cabinet player. A US government player. An Australian government player. A NZ government player. A Dutch player

IJN commander for the seperate regions IJA commander for the seperate regions Japanese government player.

The government (war office) players are there to tell the military commanders what to do in broad terms and do not directly control the action. Ideally they should each have separate ideas on how to carry out the war. Then the military commanders each carry out the orders as they see fit with the forces the governments have allocated them. For added realism each commander should be determined that his/her area is the most important one. This will create a realistic approximation of the war, to further increase the realism each player only gets a maximum of one hour to view the turn and issue their orders, thus recreating the pressure that would be felt at a real HQ. Obviously the game would last about half a turn before everything imploded

The British government will be concerned about the Empire's position post war, the US will desire to prop up China whilst also having no desire to help regain the colonial possessions of the UK. The Australian and NZ governments will be concerned about Japanese invasion and the Chinese players will each be trying to kick out the Japanese whilst maintaining their own forces at a stronger level than their oppo ready for a post war show down.

Sounds like a good game of Empires in Arms.

MY 2 bobs worth (worth about a quarter these days)

The game as presented is capabale of being played as a simulation (or very close)

It is also capable of being played as a game.

When you get 2 players together they decide which type they want, some prefer sticking to historical lines (including IJN doctrine if they want) or totally no hold barred and a USMC landing in Tokyo Bay on 12 Dec 1941.

Yes it needs a more modern game engine, when someone finds it let us all know.

Well. I don't agree on this point. This is a pacific theatre ww2 war simulation. ...

I also find it fits the definition of a simulation well. Every term needs a definition and often there are many definitions for one term floating around. And many types of games, as well as many types of simulations. If you ask different members on this forum, you'll get different answers. Both games and simulations usually involve abstractions and approximations. There are simulations with such crude approximations (not only in gaming, but also in science), that they would qualify as a very bad game. Similarly you could probably consider AE a game with very wisely chosen approximations, as much as you can consider it a simulation with many perspectives or functions for the player.

The word doesn't matter, it will remain the same code that does the fun stuff to keep you well occupied in your spare time... And that is all that really is important. If you like it, play it, and if you don't, don't... As for point (1), the ground combat model, that I agree would be nice if it were more flexible and capable (there is someone trying a sort of "War in Europe" adaption from AE, which is an awesome idea, or someone trying to adapt it to a North Africa scenario, but I fear as ground war was so different that in SEA, and so much more important in these theaters, they will be limited by the ground combat model). But actually it works quite well in most situations in this game, even if you do an armor offensive in North Australia or so.

A couple of people need to chill out a bit. I have been playing Adsoul for a few months now and he is a very engaging and gallant opponent. He obviously loves the game and is only hampered by his inperfect use of the english language. Not everyone is a native speaker....

He just raises a few issues with the game and states he is curious about what other people think could be improved...

No kidding. Alas though the kids that inhabit this forum cannot take negative criticism of any kind probably because this game represents a large portion of their life I guess. Thats why I stopped posting commentary long ago and keep questions simple. "A WITCH...A WITCH...BURN HIM!!"

Many thanks for your advice DivePac88. Rest assured I know very well what to do with it.

Thicken your skin my friend. Anyone who has ever come to this forum with any measure whatsoever of criticism, no matter how constructtive, quicky finds himself pounced upon by the forum trolls who worship the gorund trod by the designers. It was only a matter of time before they crawled out of the woodwork to arrived in your thread.

No kidding. Alas though the kids that inhabit this forum cannot take negative criticism of any kind probably because this game represents a large portion of their life I guess. Thats why I stopped posting commentary long ago and keep questions simple. "A WITCH...A WITCH...BURN HIM!!"

Ok now that you gave us your sentence from the high of the skies close the clouds and return to your olympic residence.

Last time I paid for this game was in December 2011... and I am more than willing to pay again for additional content or improvements

Also, I just checked the Matrix full forum and WitP has by far the biggest # of of posts/ topics (2nd Gary Grigby's War in the East)... so, if posts are at least a measure of interest, there is enough to guarantee an expansion

Last time I paid for this game was in December 2011... and I am more than willing to pay again for additional content or improvements

Also, I just checked the Matrix full forum and WitP has by far the biggest # of of posts/ topics (2nd Gary Grigby's War in the East)... so, if posts are at least a measure of interest, there is enough to guarantee an expansion

Regards

This is an often discussed question. And people on the design team have said "the engine just can't handle more". That means a totally new game. And lots and lots of investment. I'm sure Matrix has taken more than one look at this , and simply concluded that at this time , it's not the best investment. Sad, but these are very hard times for everyone.

_____________________________

"Geezerhood is a state of mind, attained by being largely out of yours". AW1Steve

"Quit whining and play the game. Or go home". My 7th grade baseball coach. It applies well to WITP AE players.